We Lov Dov: Charney and Woody Bury the Hatchet

For a moment, let’s picture the world without American Apparel’s Dov Charney (pictured). Fewer t-shirts; fewer lurid ads featuring feathered hair and thigh-high socks; fewer jobs out in L.A.; more retail space in Brooklyn’s hipper neighborhoods; and fewer completely wacked-out legal disputes. We’re not sure if Charney’s a force for good in the world, but from where we sit as law-bloggers, the guy’s been awesome. We Lov Dov.

Today, Charney settled a long-running dispute with Woody Allen, with American Apparel agreeing to pay Allen $5 million. In March of last year, Allen sued the company after alleging that without his permission, American Apparel, put up billboards in New York and in Hollywood in May 2007 that featured an image of Allen dressed as a rabbi from “Annie Hall.” Click here for today’s WSJ story; here for an earlier LB post on the case.

“Threats and press leaks by American Apparel designed to smear me did not work and a scheme to call a long list of witnesses who had absolutely nothing to do with the case was also disallowed by the court,” said Allen outside the federal courthouse, according to the NYT. “I suspect this dose of legal reality led to their 11th-hour settlement,” he added.

And Charney? In a statement, Charney sure didn’t hold back. Click here for the whole item, in all of its glory. First, Dov Charney on the law:

Today the lawsuit filed against American Apparel by Woody Allen will settle whereby he will receive a $5m (£3.3m) payment. The vast majority of this payment will be paid by our insurance carrier who is responsible for the decision to settle this case and has controlled the defence of this case since its inception.
. . .
For the record, I personally think we had a good case. . . As a matter of law, no commercial transaction is proposed: no merchandise is shown or described, and no price is quoted. Instead, the billboard contains an image of an Orthodox Jew in a black top hat – none of which can be purchased at American Apparel. And the writing on the poster is not the copy of a commercial advertisement, but Yiddish words identifying Allen as ‘The High Rabbi’. Finally, even if the billboard is found to have the dual purpose of a commercial transaction and an expressive medium, first amendment protection still attaches because the two elements are ‘inextricably intertwined’.

Next, Dov Charney on the meaning of the billboards:

In the spring of 2007, my company American Apparel put up two billboards depicting an image of Woody Allen dressed as a Hasidic Jew, from the movie Annie Hall, one in New York City and the other in Los Angeles. They were up for less than a week, and when Mr Allen’s representatives asked that we take them down we did so immediately.
. . .
The image of Mr Allen in the billboards was from a scene in the film in which the character he plays, Alvy Singer, is an uncomfortable guest at an Easter dinner hosted by the family of his gentile girlfriend, Annie Hall. Alvy feels so out of place and hopelessly misunderstood at this dinner that Mr Allen makes a joke of it and shows Alvy imagining himself as a Hasidic Jew.

Along the top of the billboard were the words “der haileker rebbe”, written in Hebrew letters. This is Yiddish for “the highest level, extra-holy Rabbi”, of which there is only one in the worldwide Hasidic Jewish Lubavitcher community.

In Catholic terms, but from a Lubavitcher perspective, it would be like referring to Woody Allen as the Pope. Naturally this was intended as a satirical spoof and not to be taken literally. Posed as a riddle, the purpose of the text was to create a parallel between the sentiment of that moment in the film and what my company and I were experiencing at the time.

At the time of the billboards, my company and I were experiencing the media fallout resulting from a few sexual harassment lawsuits. There were false allegations such as that I had conducted a job interview in my underwear that were sensationalised and exaggerated to the point where my entire persona was vilified. Today, two years later, all the claims in the lawsuits have been completely disproven and yet at the time, some writers characterised me as a rapist and abuser of women, others asserted that I was a bad Jew, and some even stated that I was not fit to run my company.

There are no words to express the frustration caused by these gross misperceptions, but this billboard was an attempt to at least make a joke about it.

Finally, Dov Charney on his attempted apology to Allen:

I have already apologised to Mr Allen and have tried, through his lawyers, to explain to him the meaning behind the billboards. Although I am sorry that I am in conflict with Mr Allen, I believe I had the right to express myself in the manner in which I did. Contrary (to) some articles that have been written about this case, I want to preserve Woody Allen’s dignity as well as my own to the extent that is possible in a dispute of this kind.

In his deposition, Mr Allen said that he had never heard of American Apparel or me prior to the billboard. I believe that if Mr Allen became more familiar with the company, he might appreciate some aspects of American Apparel specifically our commitment to creativity.

About Law Blog

The Law Blog covers the legal arena’s hot cases, emerging trends and big personalities. It’s brought to you by lead writer Jacob Gershman with contributions from across The Wall Street Journal’s staff. Jacob comes here after more than half a decade covering the bare-knuckle politics of New York State. His inside-the-room reporting left him steeped in legal and regulatory issues that continue to grab headlines.

Must Reads

Plaintiffs' lawyers dodged a bullet last year when the U.S. Supreme Court spared a quarter-century-old precedent that had served as the legal linchpin of the modern investor class-action case. Despite that win, a new report suggests that securities class actions have lost some of their firepower.

In a week in which images of Prophet Muhammad were connected to acts of terror and defiant expressions of freedom, a sculpture of the prophet of Islam inside the U.S. Supreme Court has drawn little notice.

Alan Dershowitz has vowed to slap a defamation suit against the two lawyers who claimed in a court document that Florida financier Jeffrey Epstein arranged sexual liaisons for him with an underage prostitute. Those lawyers have beaten him to the punch.

The salacious allegations against Prince Andrew and Alan Dershowitz that surfaced in a federal lawsuit involving convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein have generated international attention. Drawing less coverage is the lawsuit itself -- a case with the potential to expand the rights of crime victims during federal investigations.